Now anything coming from the Swedes needs to be looked at closely, they have an instinct, dare I say 'Methodical' approach to curtailing civil liberties.

So what is it all about. It is about the compulsory fiitting of breathalisers to the private car, breathalisers which are attached to the ignition, thus ensuring that there cannot be drink drivers, and no doubt saving millions of children and kittens from horrible, unecessary deaths. Volvo trucks (who are speaking at the event), fit them to a fair proportion of their trucks and that is fine. If operators of truck fleets or even buses wish to introduce them, no problem. But is the move to make them compulsory that grates.

It is being driven by the MHF -Swedish Abstaining Motorists’ Association (one wonders if they abstain from anything else?). Their stated aim is,

We are the organisation in Sweden that takes a broad view of alcolocks. MHF is pushing for these devices to be installed in all vehicles, quite simply because it saves lives.

The other people behind this project are the European Saftey Treansport Council, the ETSC. Actually they are running the show, as the fact that if you want to go to their cocktail party (sorry safety exhibition) you have to write to them,

To register, please send an

ETSC's work is financed by its members, through projects co-funded by the European Commission, and private sector sponsorship.

Back in 2000 the EU started looking into these alcohol driving disablers, and they have been used to recidivist drink drivers with some sucess in Australia and Canada. In these limitedcases than I can see their use. But that is not what is going n here. What we can see is a concerted effport to make them compulsory in every vehichle in Europe.

Not obnly would the cost be prohibitive (apptroximate £1000 per annum per car) the control aspects would be scary.

Looking at the study to make the Alcolock effective would mean a whole series of checking and control systems that would be utterly disproportionate. Anti tampering would need breath recognition systems, data retention, and repeated multiple tests during the drive,

"Many alcohol interlock devices require repeated breath tests - ‘running re-tests’ - at a random interval after the vehicle has been successfully started. The purpose of these ‘running re-tests’ is actually threefold: (1) to prevent the possibility of a bystander providing an alcohol-free breath sample that would allow a driver with a high BAC to operate the vehicle; (2) to detect drivers whose BAC is still in the ascending phase and has risen beyond the set point after the vehicle was originally started; and (3) to prevent drivers from leaving the vehicle idling while they drink

They do recognise certain problems with fitting the device on the vehichles of recidivist drink drivers,

Over half of the interlock group had at least two cars available. When there was another vehicle in the family, there was a tendency for fewer trips in the interlock vehicle

No shit. Thus the solution is to make them compulsory.

There are some interesting drivers of drink driving according to the study. The most common is recognising that you have a drink problem.

Next is,

• being single;

Then,

• having children.

Oh, and I do hope that everybody at the event remembers not to drive home after the cocktails.email to Ilyas.Daoud@etsc.eu by March 18. The ETSC is, you will not be surprised to note, funded by industry (Volvo, Toyota etc) and the EU,

3 comments:

If these are compulsory as standard on cars, teething problems are going to cost the economy too. Police already target morning drivers at Christmas as they don't know they are technically still marginally over the limit from the night before.

Couple it with the zero alcohol limit the EU are considering, and vast swathes of the working population will have to give up driving, or give up any alcohol to be sure their car will start.

Here's a typical example of barbar attempts to enforce their dumbness on everyone else: the Alcolock is a breathing device installed in the car, where if it detects driver being over "the limit" will lock engine and car won't start. NOT SURPRISINGLY it comes from, where else, swedistan.... :-)Now, besides the obvious fact, that different people have different levels of liquor tolerance as well as different levels of driving ability, so to enforce a same "limit" to all people is incredibly dumb, the technology is already available to make cars safer in the case the driver is already drunk or even very drunk and to avert skidding, obstacles and wrong steering. In other words, if the aim is accident reduction it can already be achieved with other means. BUT the aim isn't accident reduction, that's merely the pretext. The aim is prohibitionism, as with every other 'safety' proposal that is vomited out of swedistan barbars. Isn't it about time we put these barbars in their place and kick out of our lives and legislations, their paranoic attempts? Let's face it, they ARE barbars, so there is no point in paying any attention to what these slaves demand (!). Let's begin cleaning the swedistan garbage in order to progress into a civilized Europe.